6.
It is often objected that baptism can do infants no good.
“What
good can a little sprinkling with water do a tiny, unconscious baby?” My chief
response to this is: what good did circumcision do an 8-day-old Jewish baby? To
even ask this question is to impugn the wisdom of God. It is for that reason
a most impious objection. When the opponents of the apostle Paul asked the
question, “What profit is there in circumcision?” he answered, “Much in every
way” (Rom. 3:1-2). Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign of many important
truths and a seal of many important covenant blessings. Can anyone possibly
assert that there is no advantage in the practice of that which holds up to our
view, in a significant way, several of those fundamental doctrines of the
gospel which are of deep personal interest to us and our children? Can we not profit by
attending on a sacrament which signifies to us our fallen, depraved nature, and
the way God has appointed in his wisdom and love to recover us by the atoning
blood and cleansing Spirit of Jesus Christ our Savior? In baptism, we are dedicating our
children to God by a rite of His own institution.
It
is for this reason that those who share our paedobaptist conviction have always asserted that those
who refuse or neglect to baptize their children sin against Christ by
disobeying his solemn command, and they sin against their children and
themselves by depriving them of the great benefits of the covenant. They can
pretend that this is a disputed point if they want to, but is this not an
attempt to be wiser than God? Those may sound like rather harsh words, but let me hasten to say two things. The words of the Belgic Confession are much harsher as are Ursinus' words in the commentary on his own Heidelberg Catechism. Moreover, John MacArthur, in a sermon against infant baptism, used harsher words than I have when he call the practice of infant baptism "devilish." Whatever my personal views are on the doctrine of the Baptists and their erroneous view of the sacraments, you have never read the words "devilish" in any of my articles on the subject.
Back to the subject at hand. I
don't pretend to be able to make a list which comprehensively includes anything
or everything which may be of benefit to the infant who is presented for
baptism. But I do know this, that Christ has appointed it as a sign of precious
truths and the seal of His blessings to His covenant people and their infant
offspring.
I
am prepared to go even farther. This objection is founded on a mindset that is
diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Gospel. It is equally opposed to the
religious education of children, and if held consistently, would militate
against all the instructions which the Word of God enjoins on parents. Indeed,
we would have to assert that it is wrong to preoccupy the minds of our children
with an abhorrence of lying, theft, murder, lust, drunkenness, and malice,
lest we should fill their minds with prejudices that would be unfriendly to free
inquiry later in life. Wouldn't it be deceiving our children into thinking that they belong to God when in fact they don't? Wouldn't it instilling in them a false sense of security that they belong to God if we train them in the faith before we have any indication of regeneration? But that is exactly what the Baptist position, if held consistently, entails. Baptist churches, like Reformed paedobaptist ones, have programs for children. Which means that even while denying the sacrament of baptism to his covenant children, the Baptist views his children as being in the covenant. And the Baptist practice of baby dedications is a tacit admission of
the truth of what I have just asserted.
One
of the great purposes for which the church was established was to watch over
and train up its children in the knowledge and fear of God. Any system of
religion that does not embrace children in its covenant engagements is gravely
defective. (see Malachi 2:15)
No comments:
Post a Comment